(2) I believe that the crucified Christ was seen and touched, after his
burial, by multiple persons who were not hallucinating

(3) I believe that Christians must believe (1) and (2)

This can't be a long post--I shun them b/c my choice is typically to post
something short or not to post at all--and I grant readily that one can't do
justice to this in a post whether long or short. But I wish to say
something about this.

I strongly affirm (1) and (2) myself, and am sympathetic to (3). I
understand the view (widely promoted by academic theologians since the
mid-19th century) that the resurrection was actually another thing, which I
call:

(4) I believe that the followers of Jesus believed that they saw and
experienced Jesus after his burial

but I think both as a scholar and as a Christian that this view was a
complete surrender to scientific naturalism, a surrender that shows failure
of nerve as well as failure of faith. I am not accusing those who
affirm(ed) it of failing to be faithful followers of Jesus--ie, faithful
Christians--but I am saying they haven't thought carefully enough about
this, and that they accepted a false view of science and its scope. I think
a lot of this had to do with the pursuit of legitimacy in German and other
universities, but frankly I don't know that historical story nearly well
enough to say that with confidence. Nevertheless, I am confident about the
failure of nerve and the failure of faith, and I intend to write about that
in my current book project.

Thus I explain my response to (3).

I distinguish (1) from (2) simply to separate the claim of an empty tomb
from the claim of appearances. They aren't the same thing, and (again) I
understand the view that (2) led to (1). Lots of books have been written
about this, most of which I will never have time to read, so I want simply
to note the difference. But I think that the Thomas tradition, which I
accept as authentic, rules out accepting (2) without (1). It's also
consistent with Paul's discussion in Corinthians, which jumps from his
experience (close to category four, actually) to the highly un-Platonic
notion of the glorified bodies rather than separated souls. If the
glorified Christ who showed himself to Saul--er, Paul--is really the "first
fruits of them that slept," as Paul teaches, then I think we can readily put
(1) and (2) in the same camp.